IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Civil Action No.

____________________ ADAPTIVE SONICS LLC Plaintiff, v. WIDEX A/S; and WIDEX USA, INC., Defendants.

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Adaptive Sonics LLC ("Plaintiff" or "Adaptive Sonics"), for its Complaint with Jury Demand for patent infringement against Defendants Widex A/S ("Widex") and Widex USA, Inc. ("Widex USA") (collectively "Defendants"), alleges as follows: I. THE PARTIES 1. Adaptive Sonics is a limited liability company existing under the laws of Texas

with its principal place of business at 6136 Frisco Square Blvd., Suite 385, Frisco, TX 75034. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Widex is a corporation existing under the

laws of Denmark with a principal place of business at Nymoellevej 6, 3540 Lynge, Denmark. Upon further information and belief, Defendant Widex USA is a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 35-53 24th St., Long Island, NY 111064416 and is the US subsidiary of Widex. Upon further information and belief, Defendants offer

products and services through an affiliated health care professional located in Longview, Texas and currently transact business in the Marshall division. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. 271. 4. 1338(a). 5. Upon information and belief, Defendants have minimum contacts with the Eastern This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

District of Texas such that this forum is a fair and reasonable one. Specifically and also upon information and belief, Defendants have committed such purposeful acts and/or transactions in Texas that they reasonably knew and/or expected that they could be hauled into court as a future consequence of such activity. Also specifically and upon information and belief, Defendants have transacted and/or, at the time of the filing of this Complaint, are transacting business within the Eastern District of Texas. For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists over Defendants. 6. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) as Defendants

may be found in this judicial district and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction within this judicial district. Venue is also proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) as Defendants have committed acts of infringement in this judicial district. Venue is proper in this judicial district, upon information and belief, because Defendants do business here and Defendants have an authorized distributor of infringing products in this district.

III. FACTS 7. Adaptive Sonics is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United States

Patent No. 5,473,701 ("the '701 Patent"), entitled "Adaptive Microphone Array." A true and correct copy of the '701 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 8. Independent Claim 1 of the '701 Patent reads:

1. A method of enhancing the signal-to-noise ratio of a microphone array, the array including a plurality of microphones and having a directivity pattern, the directivity pattern of the array being adjustable based on one or more parameters, the method comprising the steps of: a. evaluating one or more parameters to realize an angular orientation of a directivity pattern null, which angular orientation reduces microphone array output signal level in accordance with a criterion, said evaluation performed under a constraint that the null be precluded from being located within a predetermined region of space which comprises a range of directions about the array, which range reflects a predetermined directional variability of the desired acoustic energy with respect to the array; b. modifying output signals of one or more microphones of the array based on the one or more evaluated parameters; and c. forming an array output signal based on one or more modified output signals and zero or more unmodified microphone output signals. 9. Independent Claim 11 of the '701 Patent reads:

11. An apparatus for enhancing the signal-to-noise ratio of a microphone array, the array including a plurality of microphones and having a directivity pattern, the directivity pattern of the array being adjustable based on one or more parameters, the apparatus comprising: a. means for evaluating one or more parameters to realize an angular orientation of a directivity pattern null, which angular orientation reduces microphone array output signal level in accordance with a criterion, said evaluation performed under a constraint that the null be precluded from being located within a predetermined region of space which comprises a range of directions about the array which range reflects a predetermined directional variability of the desired acoustic energy with respect to the array;

b. means for modifying output signals of one or more microphones of the array based on the one or more evaluated parameters; and c. means for forming an array output signal based on one or more modified output signals and zero or more unmodified microphone output signals. 10. The claims of the '701 Patent were recently subjected to an ex parte reexamination

before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") that was initiated by the K/S Hearing Industries Manufacturers Patent Partnership ("K/S HIMPP"). On February 23, 2010, the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate indicating that the claims of the '701 Patent, including, without limitation, independent Claims 1 and 11, were confirmed as valid without amendment. A true and correct copy of the Reexamination Certificate is attached as Exhibit B. 11. On January 13, 2010, K/S HIMPP requested a second ex parte reexamination of

the '701 Patent. That second request for reexamination was denied by the USPTO on April 22, 2011. A true and correct copy of the USPTO decision denying K/S HIMPP's second ex parte reexamination request is attached as Exhibit C. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Widex is a limited partner and Upon further information and belief, Defendants have actual

shareholder of K/S HIMPP.

knowledge of the '701 Patent through at least Defendant Widex's partnership in K/S HIMPP. Upon further information and belief, Defendants are aware that the '701 Patent is valid and enforceable. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendants Widex and Widex USA have

manufactured, made, had made, used, practiced, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale the Clear440 hearing aid (the "Accused Product") and/or conducted testing involving the Accused Product that infringes one or more claims of the '701 Patent and/or

Defendants are inducing and/or contributing to the infringement of one or more of the claims of the '701 Patent by others, including, without limitation, affiliated health care professionals located in this Judicial District. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendants have conducted testing involving the

Accused Product that infringed one or more claims of the '701 Patent. Defendants have also induced and/or contributed to the direct infringement of one or more of the claims of the '701 Patent by others, including, without limitation, affiliated health care professionals located in this judicial district, by directing those health care professionals to use the Accused Product in a manner that infringed one or more claims of the '701 Patent. For example, Defendants have directed health care professionals regarding operating the Accused Product during the fitting of the Accused Product with the auditory needs of a patient. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendants are aware that the '701 Patent is infringed

by the Accused Product and that this was a motivating factor for K/S HIMPP to seek reexamination of the '701 Patent to either invalidate or narrow the scope of the claims of the '701 Patent. Accordingly, Defendants knew that their actions induced and/or contributed to the acts of direct infringement by health care professionals constituting infringement of the '701 Patent. IV. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Patent Infringement) 16. 17. Adaptive Sonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Defendants manufacture, make, have made, use, practice, import, provide, supply,

distribute, sell, and/or offer for sale products and/or services that infringe one or more claims of the '701 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a), and/or are inducing direct infringement of the

'701 Patent by others by actively instructing, assisting and/or encouraging others to practice one or more of the inventions claimed in the '701 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b), and/or are contributing to direct infringement of the '701 Patent by others by offering to sell, selling or providing one or more items which constitute a material part of an invention defined by claims of the '701 Patent, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the '701 Patent, which components are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(c). 18. Adaptive Sonics has been damaged as a result of Defendants' infringing conduct.

Defendants are thus liable to Adaptive Sonics in an amount that adequately compensates Adaptive Sonics for such infringement which cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284. 19. Defendants' acts of infringement have been willful, deliberate, and in reckless

disregard of Adaptive Sonics' patent rights, and will continue unless permanently enjoined by this Court. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Adaptive Sonics requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendants, and that the Court grant Adaptive Sonics the following relief: A. Judgment that one or more claims of the '701 Patent has been infringed, either

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendants and/or by others whose infringement was induced or contributed to by Defendants;

B.

A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, along with their officers, directors,

agents, servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, and parents, from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of the '701 Patent; C. Judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Adaptive Sonics all damages to

and costs incurred by Adaptive Sonics because of Defendants' infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty; D. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused to it by reason of

Defendants' infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; E. A judgment and order finding Defendants' infringement willful and awarding

treble the amount of damages and losses sustained by Adaptive Sonics as a result of Defendants' infringement under 35 U.S.C. 284; and F. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the

circumstances, including an award of enhanced damages and/or determining this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding Adaptive Sonics its reasonable attorneys' fees.

VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Adaptive Sonics hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FERGUSON LAW GROUP, P.C.

Dated: January 13, 2012

By:

/s/ John D. Fraser John D. Fraser Lead Counsel State Bar No. 07393550 2500 Dallas Parkway, Suite 260 Plano, Texas 75093 Phone: 972.378.9111 Fax: 972.378.9115 E-Mail: jfraser@dallasbusinesslaw.com

Of Counsel (applications pro hac vice forthcoming) Robert R. Brunelli (pending pro hac admission) rbrunelli@sheridanross.com Benjamin B. Lieb (pending pro hac admission) blieb@sheridanross.com John R. Posthumus (pending pro hac admission) jposthumus@sheridanross.com Patricia Y. Ho (pending pro hac admission) pho@sheridanross.com SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80202-5141 Telephone: 303-863-9700 Facsimile: 303-863-0223 E-mail: litigation@sheridanross.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF